Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Ukulelemike

David Cloud-Who Is This Guy, Anyways?

Recommended Posts

In a recent post on another topic, this comment was made:

 

  "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

 

Now, while I see an obvious implication in this, I actually wanted to address the main context of where it has come fomr, which is David Cloud.

 

  David Cloud is not a popular man with many, which I am sure is fine with him-most of us who are willing to take a stand, whether he, or the person who posted the above comment, or most of us here at Online Baptist, understand that to take a stand, and to draw a line, as it were, will find many people who don't like them for that, and as I say, we all expect it, and none of us expect to be adored by everyone.

 

 However, who IS David Cloud? One person in the previously-mentioned topic asked if he had ever pastored a church, or was he just a professional ministry critiquer. So obviously, there are many commenting about his stands who don't even know who he is. Is he just a computer-sitter, criticizing that which he is unwiling to do himself? Is he a panty-waist, sissified, chicken-livered preacher seeking his own popularity? Let's find out, shall we?

 

   David Cloud was saved in 1973, as a Vietnam war vet, now a hippie with long hair, a dope-smoking rock n roller. He was saved through the witnessing of an Assembly of God preacher who picked him up while hitch-hiking across country, and spent three days witnessing to him of Christ. He tried out the AOG church, but in his new-found love of the Bible found they were not biblical in many of their beliefs and activities.  He attended Tennessee Temple in 1974. He is currently a missionary in Nepal, and has been for over 30 years, preaches across this country, as well, and is founder and administrator of Way of Life Literature. He's written over 100 books, and has numerous videos out of his preaching.

 

  His personal statement of faith I won't print out, but it can be found here:  http://www.wayoflife.org/about/statement.html

I suspect few here will find anything odd or out of the ordinary for a Fundamental SOF.  He has taken the exact same stand for fundamentalism, for bible purity, for holiness and separation, for Christ, etc, that I believe all of us hold to.

 

So what's the difference? Well, his Way of Life ministry is a warning, ministry, and warning ministries, in general, or never popular. Why not, seeing as we are told in scripture to mark men who teach doctrines opposed to true doctrines and avoid them. We are told to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. I guess, however, for some, its just supposed to be something someone does for their own church, and about their own church. We are not to 'cast stones', nor judge others. Paul clearly named names of those in churches who were reprobates-we know their names, even today, after their influence is long gone; and, by the way, one of those names was Peter, a great man of God, in the ministry before Paul was-how dare that sissified know-it all! Jeremiah and Isaiah clearly marked those who were in sin and rebelling against God, both kings and even other prophets!

 

  Now, this may seem like I am a big fan of David Cloud-I suppose in some ways, I am-I admit it. However, I disagree with him in some areas, but I do see the need for clear warnings to be made against apostasy, especially within our own ranks. Yes, he has had things to say about many 'great' men of God. However, which among is is really 'great' anyways? I would never seek to call myself that, not encourage others to say it about me, and I would hold suspect a pastor who does, who holds himself as indispensible to God and His cause. Even John the Baptist, greater than all men born among women, was still the least in the kingdom of heaven. And all John coud say of himself was "He must increase, but I [must] decrease". John knew the smaller he was, the greater the Lord would be magnified.

 

So, I encourage anyone who believes Cloud to be, possibly, a sissified, chicken-livered preacher only out for his own popularity, to take a little time and watch some of his videos, listen to his preaching, consider the great voices of opposition against him, and see if he really promotes or projects such a position. He promotes truth and accoutability and doctrine, separation and holiness. Few who hold to such will ever be popular, and good luck finding a sissy to preach such.

 

If you will notice I took  the quote out when quoting from your post & placed X's in its place. That is not something I would think a pastor would quote & I surely do not want those words in a post that I post on this forum.

 

Yet, you say someone on this forum has stated that, we need a link, I searched for it & found nothing like that on this forum. So please furnish a link to the quote your referring to. 

 

 

By the way, Mr. Cloud is not Christ, so there's no New Testament Church in this world that's accountable to Him or any other human. New Testament Churches are only accountable to Christ, Christ still lives, He is not dead, He is setting on the right hand of our living God who is His Father & He is still the Head of every new Testament Church, He has never given up that position to anyone. 

 

 

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
 
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

 

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

 

I say that knowing that some disallow the true Cornerstone, yet I'm hoping no one on this forum is doing that.

 

1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

 

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

 

 

Mr. Cloud does some things real good, yet on somethings he goes WAY overboard. He is just like the rest of us humans, comes short of the glory of God, imperfect. Thanks for the grace God has given us though Jesus our Savior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you will notice I took  the quote out when quoting from your post & placed X's in its place. That is not something I would think a pastor would quote & I surely do not want those words in a post that I post on this forum.

 

Yet, you say someone on this forum has stated that, we need a link, I searched for it & found nothing like that on this forum. So please furnish a link to the quote your referring to. 

 

 

By the way, Mr. Cloud is not Christ, so there's no New Testament Church in this world that's accountable to Him or any other human. New Testament Churches are only accountable to Christ, Christ still lives, He is not dead, He is setting on the right hand of our living God who is His Father & He is still the Head of every new Testament Church, He has never given up that position to anyone. 

 

 

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
 
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

 

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

 

I say that knowing that some disallow the true Cornerstone, yet I'm hoping no one on this forum is doing that.

 

1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

 

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

 

 

Mr. Cloud does some things real good, yet on somethings he goes WAY overboard. He is just like the rest of us humans, comes short of the glory of God, imperfect. Thanks for the grace God has given us though Jesus our Savior.

Sorry-not sure how to link it, specifically, but it is comment 349 in the post about Ignoring the sins of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind. Sorry for my breaking of etiquette, but I wasn't sure I wanted to make a point of saying who it was. Not trying to go after anyone, ust using the comment to make my point.

 

I am well aware of the responsibility the churches have to Christ as their head, but I am also aware that false doctrines need to be exposed as such, and as long as those doctrines are not repented of, a warning should be made so others can know to avoid them, should they choose.

 

To my knowledge, David Cloud has never gone into any church and demanded they change, or tried to place himself over them. He has written to pastors and told them if he has seen what seems to him to be error in doctrine or some activity, and he has sounded warnings when those things are very public, where they affect others, such as through videos, books, tapes, etc. I agree there comes a time that a warning has been spoken enough-if they hear, they hear; if they forbear, let them forbear. But that's Cloud's ministry, and like others, he will be accountable to God, as well. I have found great help in his teachings, and know many others have, as well. I suppose he'll stop warning when theres nothing more to warn about.

 

And has been said before, no one seems to care when people like BIlly Graham or Rick Warren are continualy lambasted from the pulpit, seeing as they have a great influence in books, videos and media attention-why would our own be exempt? I would like to think we would hold our own to a higher standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If false doctrines and those who teach them are not to be exposed, then many will fall prey to the wolves that Paul warned would 'rise up among you, scattering the flock."


As I said in a recent thread, I agree with most of David Cloud's teachings, but there are a few that he holds to and teaches that I am not afraid to speak up about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the timing of this matter that especially doesn't seem right. The church has a new pastor and is hopefully going to be led in the right direction. Such is a time for encouragement, not dredgeing up their past. Cloud has put forth much about this in recent times so there is no real need to do so again now, nor to denounce those pastors who sent a message of encouragement to the new pastor and hopes the church will do well.

 

Now is a time we should all give encouragement to this new pastor and church and give them time together before we consider whether there is trouble afoot or if the church is set on the path of righteousness.

 

The point of Clouds article wasn't simply saying that some past bad teachings are still out there and I need to warn about that, he was specifically denouncing the pastors who are encourageing a new pastor coming in to repair a church and saying they should have focused upon the past and raised that issue yet again.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with some of the wording some of the pastors used, their attempt to encourage the new pastor and church looking with hope toward the future is the right approach at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry-not sure how to link it, specifically, but it is comment 349 in the post about Ignoring the sins of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind. Sorry for my breaking of etiquette, but I wasn't sure I wanted to make a point of saying who it was. Not trying to go after anyone, ust using the comment to make my point.

 

I am well aware of the responsibility the churches have to Christ as their head, but I am also aware that false doctrines need to be exposed as such, and as long as those doctrines are not repented of, a warning should be made so others can know to avoid them, should they choose.

 

To my knowledge, David Cloud has never gone into any church and demanded they change, or tried to place himself over them. He has written to pastors and told them if he has seen what seems to him to be error in doctrine or some activity, and he has sounded warnings when those things are very public, where they affect others, such as through videos, books, tapes, etc. I agree there comes a time that a warning has been spoken enough-if they hear, they hear; if they forbear, let them forbear. But that's Cloud's ministry, and like others, he will be accountable to God, as well. I have found great help in his teachings, and know many others have, as well. I suppose he'll stop warning when theres nothing more to warn about.

 

And has been said before, no one seems to care when people like BIlly Graham or Rick Warren are continualy lambasted from the pulpit, seeing as they have a great influence in books, videos and media attention-why would our own be exempt? I would like to think we would hold our own to a higher standard.

It was actually post 48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro Mike, I am the man that made that statement, but I assure you I was not accusing anyone specifically.  I was merely saying that when all the old time preachers that have proven themselves are knocked down, we will have a modern, watered down "gospel" from the remnant.  Where are the Tom Malones; the John R. Rice's; the Moody's, or Torries, or Ironsides, the list is long, but there are few left that preach the fire and brimstone type sermons that convict sinners, and encourage saints?  Where are the dynamic soul winners? 

 

Thank you for not mentioning my name, but I stand by what I said, not aiming my words at any specific man, but at the pulpit of today in general.  I am sorry if it was taken as an attack against Mr. Cloud, although I believe his turn is coming!  I agree that enough is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Christians can't seem to tolerate authority from the pulpit anymore. Unless imminent punishment is threatened many people don't respect authority period. Just look at the way some people talk about those in authority in the comment sections of online articles. I think there is resentment towards anyone that displays ANY TYPE of authority, secular or sacred. The "he-puts-his- pants-on-one-leg-at-a-time" attitude prevails. This especially seems to be an American heritage. Also, everybody is a know-it-all these days. I can be guilty of this sin more than the former. Since just about anyone can learn the bible as well as a preacher these days everyone seems to think they have all the answers and therefore don't have to answer or submit to anyone. This is how I see it anyways.

 

P.S. I can't stand it when preachers are called by their first name among members. To me this is a sign of the weakening of the spiritual authority of the pastorate.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry-not sure how to link it, specifically, but it is comment 349 in the post about Ignoring the sins of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind. Sorry for my breaking of etiquette, but I wasn't sure I wanted to make a point of saying who it was. Not trying to go after anyone, ust using the comment to make my point.

 

I am well aware of the responsibility the churches have to Christ as their head, but I am also aware that false doctrines need to be exposed as such, and as long as those doctrines are not repented of, a warning should be made so others can know to avoid them, should they choose.

 

To my knowledge, David Cloud has never gone into any church and demanded they change, or tried to place himself over them. He has written to pastors and told them if he has seen what seems to him to be error in doctrine or some activity, and he has sounded warnings when those things are very public, where they affect others, such as through videos, books, tapes, etc. I agree there comes a time that a warning has been spoken enough-if they hear, they hear; if they forbear, let them forbear. But that's Cloud's ministry, and like others, he will be accountable to God, as well. I have found great help in his teachings, and know many others have, as well. I suppose he'll stop warning when theres nothing more to warn about.

 

And has been said before, no one seems to care when people like BIlly Graham or Rick Warren are continualy lambasted from the pulpit, seeing as they have a great influence in books, videos and media attention-why would our own be exempt? I would like to think we would hold our own to a higher standard.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the topic Ignoring the sins of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind. has 55 replies, I can't find comment 349, & the link is to comment # 55 which is the last reply in that topic at the moment which is on page 3.

 

 

As already said, its been exposed, over & over & over again, its ignorant to keep on keeping on bashing them. When that is done all you do is keep dragging our Saviors name though the dirt.

 

There is a BIG difference in exposing & keep on keeping on beating on them. Its been exposed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Christians can't seem to tolerate authority from the pulpit anymore. Unless imminent punishment is threatened many people don't respect authority period. Just look at the way some people talk about those in authority in the comment sections of online articles. I think there is resentment towards anyone that displays ANY TYPE of authority, secular or sacred. The "he-puts-his- pants-on-one-leg-at-a-time" attitude prevails. This especially seems to be an American heritage. Also, everybody is a know-it-all these days. I can be guilty of this sin more than the former. Since just about anyone can learn the bible as well as a preacher these days everyone seems to think they have all the answers and therefore don't have to answer or submit to anyone. This is how I see it anyways.

 

P.S. I can't stand it when preachers are called by their first name among members. To me this is a sign of the weakening of the spiritual authority of the pastorate.

 

The only authority a pastor has is if he is a pastor of a New Testament Church & he has authority only in that church that's called him to be their pastor, & outside of that New Testament Church he has no authority. Now, that church can give a man who is a member of that church authority to be a missionary, to go out & start churches, Acts 13:1,2,3,. And if he does, that church he starts is a mission church under the authority of the church that sent him.

 

Its the New Testament Church that has the authority, yet that New Testament Church does not have authority over another New Testament Church except it they have started a mission church. Generally a mission church when its gets to the point in can support it self, it becomes a full fledge New Testament Church.

 

We need to be correct on who has authority, & how far it can reach. Each New Testament Church is answerable only to Jesus, he is its Head, not no man.

 

I do not place Brother in front of my name, nor Pastor, nor anything else here on the internet. I'm not your pastor, nor anyone else's pastor here on the net, & I'm not going to ask anyone to show me such respect. That is I do not go around demanding the respect of others.

 

At our church when I 1st got there over 10 years ago they started calling me Brother Smith. I asked them, if you going to call me Brother Smith, I would rather be called Brother Jerry, yet I'm not demanding anyone to address me as Brother Smith nor Brother Jerry, do so as you see fit. Since them they call me Brother Jerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy reading Bro. Cloud's material. Last year, when I first began attending my IFB church many people told me they were cultish, too legalistic, etc. I did a lot of soul searching, more Bible reading than I'd done in last 20 years and read a lot of Bro. Cloud's material which helped simplify a lot of things for me. I recognized a lot of errors done in my previous church which made it lose a large majority of long-time members, including me. I completely believe everything he says about the error of using CCM in churches and everything related to it. A lot of things now seem so obvious to me that I can't see how other "Christians" don't see it. My pastor and I have discussed many topics I've read on his website. I would recommend his materials to anyone. If other IFB's don't agree with him on some subjects I'd like to know what they are because he seems very grounded in the Word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy reading Bro. Cloud's material. Last year, when I first began attending my IFB church many people told me they were cultish, too legalistic, etc. I did a lot of soul searching, more Bible reading than I'd done in last 20 years and read a lot of Bro. Cloud's material which helped simplify a lot of things for me. I recognized a lot of errors done in my previous church which made it lose a large majority of long-time members, including me. I completely believe everything he says about the error of using CCM in churches and everything related to it. A lot of things now seem so obvious to me that I can't see how other "Christians" don't see it. My pastor and I have discussed many topics I've read on his website. I would recommend his materials to anyone. If other IFB's don't agree with him on some subjects I'd like to know what they are because he seems very grounded in the Word of God.

I agree with the majority of Brother Cloud's material and teachings.  However, there are a few subjects I believe him to be error on. 

1.  The monetary tithe
2.  A woman not to wear slacks... not even if they are modest.
3.  The length of hair.

Brother Cloud is adamant on his stance on the above three things.  Yet, I find no monetary tithe taught in the New Testament, only the tithe which was under the Law.  Brother Cloud states emphatically that women are not to wear pants of any kind, yet the Word of God teaches no such doctrine.   Brother Cloud insists that the woman's hair must be long and the man's hair short, yet he cannot tell one what constitutes long or short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only authority a pastor has is if he is a pastor of a New Testament Church & he has authority only in that church that's called him to be their pastor, & outside of that New Testament Church he has no authority. Now, that church can give a man who is a member of that church authority to be a missionary, to go out & start churches, Acts 13:1,2,3,. And if he does, that church he starts is a mission church under the authority of the church that sent him.

 

Its the New Testament Church that has the authority, yet that New Testament Church does not have authority over another New Testament Church except it they have started a mission church. Generally a mission church when its gets to the point in can support it self, it becomes a full fledge New Testament Church.

 

We need to be correct on who has authority, & how far it can reach. Each New Testament Church is answerable only to Jesus, he is its Head, not no man.

 

I do not place Brother in front of my name, nor Pastor, nor anything else here on the internet. I'm not your pastor, nor anyone else's pastor here on the net, & I'm not going to ask anyone to show me such respect. That is I do not go around demanding the respect of others.

 

At our church when I 1st got there over 10 years ago they started calling me Brother Smith. I asked them, if you going to call me Brother Smith, I would rather be called Brother Jerry, yet I'm not demanding anyone to address me as Brother Smith nor Brother Jerry, do so as you see fit. Since them they call me Brother Jerry.

Yes, I know these things Jerry. The pastor's authority is spiritual but it wouldn't hurt to heed him even in other areas too. Not that you have to obey him beyond the pulpit but it isn't always wrong to consider what he's saying. "Submit one to another" the bible says, as well as "obey them that have the rule over you for they watch for your souls". Also, where did I say that the pastor should demand to be called "pastor"? Even though he has the right to request this (just like any man should have the right to want to be called "sir" or "Mr.") where did I suggest this? The pastor doesn't stop becoming your pastor once he walks outside the church doors. When I bump into my doctor in the store I call her "doctor". Why wouldn't I do the same to my pastor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro Mike, I am the man that made that statement, but I assure you I was not accusing anyone specifically.  I was merely saying that when all the old time preachers that have proven themselves are knocked down, we will have a modern, watered down "gospel" from the remnant.  Where are the Tom Malones; the John R. Rice's; the Moody's, or Torries, or Ironsides, the list is long, but there are few left that preach the fire and brimstone type sermons that convict sinners, and encourage saints?  Where are the dynamic soul winners? 

 

 

They are out there but most of them are in smaller churches these days. On the most part, gone are the days of the mega church with an old time bible believing preacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authority is not to be overlooked.  God instituted it, and protects the "office" he has ordained.  The man in authority is not exactly the same as the authority,

 

Authority is divine; it is to serve the people as "overseer" and leader for the most part, and is to be respected, but every man in authority is not the authority, his office is.  With that distinction made clear, we must respect the office, but not blindly follow the man, as some accuse us of.  Now, someone will say that God puts the man He wants in the office or position, and the Bible says that about kings, but others claim that God gives the man special insight into holy matters, so that he can discern truth better than most. 

 

One wonders why we all have the same God, and think He is leading us, but we seem to all go in different directions!  Why do you suppose that is?  Some will insist that they are heeding God's Word, implying that the other side doesn't; where does it end? Meanwhile, the other opposes the one that is "listening" to the Lord, reading his Bible, and walking in the Spirit, and says that HE is the one that is doing the will of God.  No man knows anothers heart.  We can only go by his works, but then we see very little of his works unless we are together constantly, because everyone has a "bad day".   What if we are introduced to someone who claims to be a Christian, and has a bad day that day?  We draw the wrong conclusion; but when he has a bad day all the time, we can make an honest assessment of his walk with the Lord--or lack of it.  If a man respects authority, it will show whether he has a bad day or not, becaus it prevails over emotion.  that's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but the topic Ignoring the sins of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Ind. has 55 replies, I can't find comment 349, & the link is to comment # 55 which is the last reply in that topic at the moment which is on page 3.

 

 

As already said, its been exposed, over & over & over again, its ignorant to keep on keeping on bashing them. When that is done all you do is keep dragging our Saviors name though the dirt.

 

There is a BIG difference in exposing & keep on keeping on beating on them. Its been exposed!

Sorry, fat-fingered it. It was post 49. And I DO have fat fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the majority of Brother Cloud's material and teachings.  However, there are a few subjects I believe him to be error on. 

1.  The monetary tithe
2.  A woman not to wear slacks... not even if they are modest.
3.  The length of hair.

Brother Cloud is adamant on his stance on the above three things.  Yet, I find no monetary tithe taught in the New Testament, only the tithe which was under the Law.  Brother Cloud states emphatically that women are not to wear pants of any kind, yet the Word of God teaches no such doctrine.   Brother Cloud insists that the woman's hair must be long and the man's hair short, yet he cannot tell one what constitutes long or short.

I agree with you on the tithe. I recently was using a book of his in a class, and came to the subject of tithing-he seems to hold to an slightly-altered idea of a tithe, treating it as an a NT offering, but at a 10% level. However, I disagreew with even the terminology being used. I agree that Abraham and Jacob gave 10%, but Abraham's 10% was 10% of what he gained in battle, and gave the rest back to the kings-so it wasn't 10% of all he had, and we don't see him ever do it again. Jacob's was based not on a desire to give 10% all the time, but based upon IF God led hm back home. And in what way he does it is never revealed in scripture.

 

Slacks on women...well, I have to be honest that I am not sure on this one-if they are modest and feminine I really don't have a problem with it. I don't see it as a women dressing in man's clothes. Even men wearing pants is a fashion-thing as men once wore togas, robes, kilts, etc. Women wore the same things, but in a more feminine style, thus making the distinction.

 

Hair, I agree with hm on, as it is clearly taught in the Bible. As for how long is long/how short is short, while the Bible gives no specific command, its simple: if the hair is like a covering, compared to a cover over the head, then if the hair covers AS a veil, ei, over the entire head, at least to the shoulders, and can cover over the face, it is long enough. As for short, I would say, off the shoulders and out of the face, maybe making the collar a good measurement. I don't suspect it has to be a marine buzz-cut. A good point of reference would be: if it MIGHT be too short, for a lady, let it grow. If on a man it seems it MIGHT be too long, cut it shorter. It all really has to do with an outward show that one accepts the order God has placed for the family: Father, Son, Man and then Woman. 

   That men in general did not have long haie as art often depics can be seen in the law of the Nazarite: if the sign of a Nazarite was the long hair, how would that be a sign if ALL men had long hair? If you are going to meet me at the airport and I say you'll know me bacause I will wear a red carnation, if you come and everyone has a red carnation, there is no sign!  Also, the fact the Absalom is specifically mentioned as having such long, thick hair tells me it was an unusual feature, since it was so specifically mentioned about only him, and that his long hair was a major reason for his death is telling, as well. Absalom was rejecting of God's order, and showed it not only in his attitude toward his father, the King, but also in his long hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Christians can't seem to tolerate authority from the pulpit anymore. Unless imminent punishment is threatened many people don't respect authority period. Just look at the way some people talk about those in authority in the comment sections of online articles. I think there is resentment towards anyone that displays ANY TYPE of authority, secular or sacred. The "he-puts-his- pants-on-one-leg-at-a-time" attitude prevails. This especially seems to be an American heritage. Also, everybody is a know-it-all these days. I can be guilty of this sin more than the former. Since just about anyone can learn the bible as well as a preacher these days everyone seems to think they have all the answers and therefore don't have to answer or submit to anyone. This is how I see it anyways.

 

P.S. I can't stand it when preachers are called by their first name among members. To me this is a sign of the weakening of the spiritual authority of the pastorate.

What degree of authority do you suggest? What are the parameters? There are some who would have authority in a man's own home to the point that the wife feels strongly compelled to obey the absolute authority over the husband. If my pastor preaches and "plows down my row", and I'm convicted of some sin, it's my moral and spiritual obligation to get that thing right whether I'm a lowly husband or a pastor of a megachurch. But when some man steps over his bounds and begins twisting the scriptures for whatever reason he might have, what recourse do I have if I'm under his authority? What if a man constantly warns that any disagreement with him is "touching the Lord's anointed"? I had an evangelist who I merely showed a scripture that I had studied. I overheard him talking with a couple of the preachers about it.  But instead of being excited that one of the "pew warmers" was studying his Bible, he accused me of "coming to him about something he preached" when it had nothing to do with what he had preached and even agreed with his doctrine. I found out his church had voted him out, but of course it was their fault. it always is so maybe he is just on the defensive or something. It gets to the point where there is too much separation ; too much of an us and them mentality. And why can't a pastor be on a first name basis? All the apostles were? "Respect" is two way street. We are all commanded in the word of God to honor and submit to one another. 

1 Peter 5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over [1] God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5 Likewise, ye younger,(means "younger") submit yourselves unto the elder.(means "older") Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

 If the word "elder" means "pastor", then how many "pastors" did this church have? If you can make people believe that "elder" means "pastor" then you can have just one absolute authority. But that isn't the case here. And, is "submission" always supposed to be a one way street anyway? Not according to 1 Peter 5:5 What happens when an absolute unquestioned authority oversteps his bounds like "Dr." Schaap was doing with his false teaching of 'sex' theology or whatever you may call it? And if you want to avoid conflict and just leave, what are you supposed to do, as the supposed head of your home, when your family wants to stay?

 

Example: My former pastor requested that his son could court my daughter, I readily agreed. But it turned out that he would not respect my wishes that the courting be done only at my home and at church.  The boy came over a couple of times and then stopped. I was at the farm store in the next town, when the pastor called me on my cellphone requesting to bring his whole family to my home to discuss the matter. I declined, saying I had already given my word and it was between him and myself.. When I did, he immediately said "Well, then my son can't come to your house". This rocked on for weeks until the last camp meeting he had a visiting evangelist "preach" to me about it. After I met with the evangelist in private that night, he went straight to the pastor. The pastor then had his son write my daughter a note saying that he had intentions of "asking you to marry me one day...but because of your dad...." The pastor admitted that he read the note before it was delivered to my daughter so, in effect, it was the pastor accusing me to my daughter. He later lied in front of two witnesses saying that he did not request the meeting at my home..The reason he lied, I believe, is because he didn't want those men to know that he was trying to manipulate me, through my family, into getting is way. The two witnesses sided with the pastor of course. That's one way that blind loyalty works. Funny thing though, one of those men later left the church dissatisfied too. No, I didn't try to influence him either; never spoke a word to him after that day.. I didn't even know he had left until much later. I believe when a man is put up on a pedestal, and no one is allowed to even question him without some form of retaliation, he can become unaccountable to anyone. That's a dangerous place for anyone to be.

 

Naboth also said "no:" to an earthly authority: the king of Israel. There are legitimate parameters for authority: King Ahab overstepped his and you know the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hair, I agree with hm on, as it is clearly taught in the Bible. As for how long is long/how short is short, while the Bible gives no specific command, its simple: if the hair is like a covering, compared to a cover over the head, then if the hair covers AS a veil, ei, over the entire head, at least to the shoulders, and can cover over the face, it is long enough. As for short, I would say, off the shoulders and out of the face, maybe making the collar a good measurement. I don't suspect it has to be a marine buzz-cut. A good point of reference would be: if it MIGHT be too short, for a lady, let it grow. If on a man it seems it MIGHT be too long, cut it shorter. It all really has to do with an outward show that one accepts the order God has placed for the family: Father, Son, Man and then Woman. 

   That men in general did not have long haie as art often depics can be seen in the law of the Nazarite: if the sign of a Nazarite was the long hair, how would that be a sign if ALL men had long hair? If you are going to meet me at the airport and I say you'll know me bacause I will wear a red carnation, if you come and everyone has a red carnation, there is no sign!  Also, the fact the Absalom is specifically mentioned as having such long, thick hair tells me it was an unusual feature, since it was so specifically mentioned about only him, and that his long hair was a major reason for his death is telling, as well. Absalom was rejecting of God's order, and showed it not only in his attitude toward his father, the King, but also in his long hair.

I am not sure the hair is the covering.  The language of that passage in 1 Corinthians seems to say the covering is something else.  Yes, Paul did say her hair was for a covering.  But notice:

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


If hair were the covering, then Paul's statement above would make no sense whatsoever.  If she have no hair (covering) then let her also be shorn (cut her hair)

No, I believe the covering was something entirely different than hair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What degree of authority do you suggest? What are the parameters? There are some who would have authority in a man's own home to the point that the wife feels strongly compelled to obey the absolute authority over the husband. If my pastor preaches and "plows down my row", and I'm convicted of some sin, it's my moral and spiritual obligation to get that thing right whether I'm a lowly husband or a pastor of a megachurch. But when some man steps over his bounds and begins twisting the scriptures for whatever reason he might have, what recourse do I have if I'm under his authority? What if a man constantly warns that any disagreement with him is "touching the Lord's anointed"? I 

Yes, a wife is to submit to her OWN husband and he is the head of the house BUT there are times it might be wish to heed a pastor's advice even in temporal things. Remember Paul's rebuke of the sailors in Acts 27:21 for not listening to him. Believe me I don't believe that a pastor is to be a tyrant but at the same time I believe his authority has been whittles down to nothing but  lame duck status these days in many churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pastor is to feed his flock the Word of God so that they are equipped to witness to those who are lost.

If a pastor tells his congregation to do something that lines up with the Word of God, they should do it.  If it doesn't line up with the Word of God, they should reject it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a wife is to submit to her OWN husband and he is the head of the house BUT there are times it might be wish to heed a pastor's advice even in temporal things. Remember Paul's rebuke of the sailors in Acts 27:21 for not listening to him. Believe me I don't believe that a pastor is to be a tyrant but at the same time I believe his authority has been whittles down to nothing but  lame duck status these days in many churches.

Do you know any pastors who are spoken to directly by an angel of God? Because that's how Paul got that particular piece of advice.,,,and he gained credibilty with them later when the things he prophesied came true. The only way a pastor, or any other spiritual leader, should have any such credibility is in how he handles the word of God and how he behaves before men. I've seen it both ways: I've seen domineering laymen control a church and it's pastor and I've seen controlling pastors. Neither way was Godly.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure the hair is the covering.  The language of that passage in 1 Corinthians seems to say the covering is something else.  Yes, Paul did say her hair was for a covering.  But notice:

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If hair were the covering, then Paul's statement above would make no sense whatsoever.  If she have no hair (covering) then let her also be shorn (cut her hair)

No, I believe the covering was something entirely different than hair.

 

No, the hair is not the covering, the LONG hair is the covering, else the man would need to be bald to be uncovered.

 

Her long hair is give to her for a covering-in other words, even in Eden, the woman was formed with the covering in place, because the order was already set. Otherwise the comment about it being a shame for a man to have long hair makes no sense in the rest of the context.

 

I did a bit of studying on this subject. At the time of the writing of the epistle, the general cultural use of head coverings, or veils, was going away, and women, now with hair showing, were inventing extremely elaborate hairstyles. In fact, Paul even addresses this issue when he tells Timothy, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;". It wasn't that the women couldn't look nice, or do their hair, (which would not have even been an issue if they were supposed to be wearing coverings), but it was due to the 6-8 hour long hairstyles the women in society were wearing, huge, ugly, ungainly things, with many of them trying to out-do their friends.

 

  So, while Paul told them that it was necessary for a woman to be covered, yet the covering was their long hair, and a man was uncovered because their hair was short. But, if a woman wanted to wear her hair short, as a man's style, making her ucovered, it was shameful and she might as well be shaven or shorn, (two different things, by the way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 28 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...